[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

Tue Jun 14 01:02:20 CEST 2011

Op dinsdag 14 juni 2011 00:08:56 schreef David W. Hodgins:
+> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:28:04 -0400, Renaud MICHEL 
+<r.h.michel+mageia at gmail.com> wrote:
+> > On lundi 13 juin 2011 at 23:06, Thorsten van Lil wrote :
+> >> A rolling release has following advantages:
+> >> 1. the distribution is always up to date (also hardware support)
+> >> 2. no re-install over and over again
+> > 
+> > I don't get it why people think a re-install is necessary.
+> > My current computer was installed with mandriva 2007 (don't remember if
+> > it was .0 or .1), it is now mageia 1 and has been updated to all
+> > intermediary mdv releases.
+> 
+> My currently running install started as Mdv 2009.1, updated via urpmi to
+> 2010.2, then converted to Mageia cauldron during beta 1.
+> 
+> With a little over 4400 packages, the upgrade from one release to the next
+> takes over 8 hours, on this single core Celeron processor, so even though
+> it's not an actual re-install, it still feels like one. /usr alone is 13GB.
+
+I have a similar machine, but updated through the applet, which means it only 
+takes about 1hour and you can work in the main time and reboot when you want. 
+i don't understand why users would be expressly wanting rolling release when 
+you don't need to reinstall, or "upgrade" in a traditional sense at all...
+
+> One possibly annoying part about that, is that there are many rpm packages
+> where the only obvious change is the version.  I understand that for many
+> of the packages, they have to be rebuilt due to perl/python/glib version
+> changes, but anyone who doesn't know that will see what seems like a lot
+> of unneeded updates.
+> 
+> One con of a rolling release has been demonstrated by Cauldron over the
+> last few days.  With the perl/gnome updates, it takes a few days for all
+> of the needed packages to get built.  For a couple of days, running urpmi
+> with --auto-select wanted to remove most of gnome.  I waited till the
+> needed packages were available, whereas a less technical user may have
+> ended up removing key parts of their desktop manager.
+> 
+> Regards, Dave Hodgins
+